What is with the Hating on the USGA?

1235716

Comments

  • 15th Club15th Club Members Posts: 1,649 ✭✭
    ex0dus wrote:

    15th Club wrote:

    ex0dus wrote:

    15th Club wrote:

    ex0dus wrote:


    What was the point of the groove rule? Manufacturers were forced to change the way they make wedges, for what? To make the game harder for a handful of long hitting pros, or was it something else?




    You said that the groove rule was "a joke." And I am asking why you think it was a joke. I presumed that it was more to you, than just an initiative that you disagreed with. Or, maybe that is all it is. But you said it was "a joke," and I am asking why it was a "joke."






    Changing a rule for maufacturers and millions of players because you don't like the style of play from a handful of pros is a joke. Clear enough for you?




    Uh, okay. So you disagree. Got it. The USGA has boxes of data on how different wedges spin. But what was the problem with "changing a rule for manufacturers and millions of players"? No one basically got forced into buying anything new. Manufacturers had plenty of time to change.



    And it isn't about "a handful of pros." It has been phased in carefully to cover all of elite-level golf. So you're wrong about that.



    I disagree with you. Does that make you "a joke"?






    So in other words you don't have any reason for the rule, or have failed to mention it, other than the one I mentioned. Not surprised.



    What exactly did the rule accomplish?



    And of course I said the rule as a joke, not the USGA or Mike Davis is a joke, but you turn around say "Does that make you a joke" because you disagree with me. That is exactly the type of response I expect from the USGA.




    No; what is clear is that you think that the groove rule didn't produce any of its intended results. That is your opinion. And that is fine. Have you asked the USGA; "Did the groove rule fail to work out as you intended?"



    But that is all that you have. I am pointing out that the groove rule was based on real spin data. There was a real difference in groove and spin performance. I think that the USGA is quite satisfied that they did the right thing. You can disagree. Again, it's fine.



    But again I press you on the fact that you asserted that the rule was "a joke" and somehow indicative of USGA incompetence. As if your disagreement with them made it "a joke."



    The rule was put into practice very nicely and according to plan. In no way was it "a joke."
  • MMB1500MMB1500 Members Posts: 6,312 ✭✭
    edited Jun 12, 2018 #123
    The hate is so unfair. Why aren't they being praised and rewarded for their breathtaking incompetence? It's 2018 after all.
  • gioguy21gioguy21 NJMembers Posts: 7,146 ✭✭
    MrWolf wrote:


    The hate is so unfair. Why aren't they being praised and rewarded for their breathtaking incompetence? It's 2018 after all.
    well according to millenials, its not the USGA's fault at all. the fault lies in the founding members of the tournament deciding it needed to be so tough - those are the cards they were dealt. now they just get to complain about it.

    2017 Tour Issue M1 460 / 9.2* / Rogue 130 Silver 70TX tipped 1"
    Epic Flash SZ / 3+ / DF 70TX tipped 1.50"
    Epic Flash / 5 / BF 90TX Tipped 1.75"
    785 / 3-PW / PX 7.0
    RTX4 / 52, 59 / DG S400
    SC Kombi-s / 35.5"

  • DFS PFDDFS PFD Members Posts: 841 ✭✭
    gioguy21 wrote:

    MrWolf wrote:


    The hate is so unfair. Why aren't they being praised and rewarded for their breathtaking incompetence? It's 2018 after all.
    well according to millenials, its not the USGA's fault at all. the fault lies in the founding members of the tournament deciding it needed to be so tough - those are the cards they were dealt. now they just get to complain about it.


    What if I don't identify with a particular ruling?
    TC Rogue SZ 8.8* Pro Orange 70TX/ ACCRA TZ5 75 M5
    M2 Tour 15* Kuro Kage DC 70TX
    790 UDI Tensei Pro White 100TX
    4-PW Apex Pro 19 DG X7's
    50* MG Raw Tour issue S400
    55* MG Raw Tour issue S400
    60* Hi-Toe Tour Issue S400
    J-DAY Spider
  • DavePelz4DavePelz4 A golf course in the Chicago area.ClubWRX Posts: 24,253 ClubWRX
    Can we just give everyone a participation ribbon, hug it out and go get a gosh darn snack???
  • gioguy21gioguy21 NJMembers Posts: 7,146 ✭✭
    DFS PFD wrote:

    gioguy21 wrote:

    MrWolf wrote:


    The hate is so unfair. Why aren't they being praised and rewarded for their breathtaking incompetence? It's 2018 after all.
    well according to millenials, its not the USGA's fault at all. the fault lies in the founding members of the tournament deciding it needed to be so tough - those are the cards they were dealt. now they just get to complain about it.


    What if I don't identify with a particular ruling?
    identify yourself as a lost ball.

    2017 Tour Issue M1 460 / 9.2* / Rogue 130 Silver 70TX tipped 1"
    Epic Flash SZ / 3+ / DF 70TX tipped 1.50"
    Epic Flash / 5 / BF 90TX Tipped 1.75"
    785 / 3-PW / PX 7.0
    RTX4 / 52, 59 / DG S400
    SC Kombi-s / 35.5"

  • MilkyButterCutsMilkyButterCuts Members Posts: 833 ✭✭
    gioguy21 wrote:

    MrWolf wrote:


    The hate is so unfair. Why aren't they being praised and rewarded for their breathtaking incompetence? It's 2018 after all.
    well according to millenials, its not the USGA's fault at all. the fault lies in the founding members of the tournament deciding it needed to be so tough - those are the cards they were dealt. now they just get to complain about it.




    We'll leave that to the players.
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,028 ✭✭
    I can't say that I see the square groove stuff as a real issue. I don't have the data to defend the decision, but the decision was implemented in a way to minimize its impact. Manufacturers were given enough time to revise their production methods, existing clubs were grandfathered in, nobody was forced to buy new clubs. What's the big deal? I'd suggest that the anchored putter ban was a bigger deal for many golfers, but even that decision allowed enough room for players to continue to use long putters. I do agree that anchoring a club against the body differs from the image I have of a golf swing. I'm surprised that nobody has complained about the rule outlawing croquet-style putting.
  • ex0dusex0dus Members Posts: 497 ✭✭
    15th Club wrote:




    No; what is clear is that you think that the groove rule didn't produce any of its intended results. That is your opinion. And that is fine. Have you asked the USGA; "Did the groove rule fail to work out as you intended?"



    But that is all that you have. I am pointing out that the groove rule was based on real spin data. There was a real difference in groove and spin performance. I think that the USGA is quite satisfied that they did the right thing. You can disagree. Again, it's fine.



    But again I press you on the fact that you asserted that the rule was "a joke" and somehow indicative of USGA incompetence. As if your disagreement with them made it "a joke."



    The rule was put into practice very nicely and according to plan. In no way was it "a joke."






    So what were the "intended results"?



    *crickets*



    What was in the "real spin data" that compelled the USGA to compelled the USGA to change the rule?



    *crickets*



    Why is wedge spin such a bad thing that the rules have to be changed to reduce it?



    *crickets*
    Cobra King Ltd Pro
    Nike SQ2 13*
    Mizuno MP630 clk hybrid 20*
    Bstone J40 DPC 4 iron
    Cleveland 588 mb 5-pw
    Ping Gorge wedges 56*, 52*
    Cally Mack Daddy PM grind 60*
    Machine adjuster putter
    Bridgestone 330 ball
  • 15th Club15th Club Members Posts: 1,649 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:


    I can't say that I see the square groove stuff as a real issue. I don't have the data to defend the decision, but the decision was implemented in a way to minimize its impact. Manufacturers were given enough time to revise their production methods, existing clubs were grandfathered in, nobody was forced to buy new clubs. What's the big deal? I'd suggest that the anchored putter ban was a bigger deal for many golfers, but even that decision allowed enough room for players to continue to use long putters. I do agree that anchoring a club against the body differs from the image I have of a golf swing. I'm surprised that nobody has complained about the rule outlawing croquet-style putting.




    +1.



    I was always an agnostic on anchored putting a long putters. I felt sorry, for any poor bastxxx whose putting was so pathetic that they had to resort to something so ungainly. I didn't want to hurt them any more than a hole the size of a Scottish drain pipe was already hurting them.



    But the USGA saw top-level junior players learning to play that way, and it wasn't for the yips, or a bad back or for arthritic wrists. It was to take advantage of an anchored stroke.



    And so they wanted to ban anchoring. Trouble is, it is so damned hard to write and enforce a rule against anchored putting. I never envied the guys who were tasked with that rule-writing. But just because it is hard to write a rule doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. It is hard to write a rule against insider trading on the stock market. That doesn't mean that we should allow insider trading.



    I'm a hard-core; if it were up to me, I'd enforce an absolute length limit on putters. But even that rule is hard to write.
  • Darth PutterDarth Putter Members Posts: 4,616 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:


    I can't say that I see the square groove stuff as a real issue. I don't have the data to defend the decision, but the decision was implemented in a way to minimize its impact. Manufacturers were given enough time to revise their production methods, existing clubs were grandfathered in, nobody was forced to buy new clubs. What's the big deal? I'd suggest that the anchored putter ban was a bigger deal for many golfers, but even that decision allowed enough room for players to continue to use long putters. I do agree that anchoring a club against the body differs from the image I have of a golf swing. I'm surprised that nobody has complained about the rule outlawing croquet-style putting.




    When Bob Jones talked Joe Dey into banning the method in 1968 there were complaints registered by Gary Player, Prescott Bush and ...Jack Nicklaus!



    http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2013/06/croquet_putting_golf_s_unconscionable_ban_on_putting_between_your_legs.html
    swing is irrelevant, score is everything

    just say NO.... to practice swings
  • QManyQMany #TheWRX ClubWRX Posts: 9,036 ClubWRX
    At this point, I just wonder how much the USGA is paying people to defend their ill-advised decisions and attack critics.
    Currently in #TheWRX...

    Taylormade M3 460 (9.5°) Tensei CK Pro White 70TX
    Callaway GBB Epic SZ (15°) Tensei CK Pro Blue 80TX
    Callaway XR Pro (20°) Diamana White 90X
    Callaway Apex Pro (4i-PW) DG X100 TI
    Ping Glide 2.0 (50° & 54°) DG S400 TI
    Artisan MT Grind (58°) DG S400
    Odyssey O Works R-Line
    Taylormade TP5X


    QMany's Swing/Sticks / Instagram
  • 15th Club15th Club Members Posts: 1,649 ✭✭
    ex0dus wrote:

    15th Club wrote:


    No; what is clear is that you think that the groove rule didn't produce any of its intended results. That is your opinion. And that is fine. Have you asked the USGA; "Did the groove rule fail to work out as you intended?"



    But that is all that you have. I am pointing out that the groove rule was based on real spin data. There was a real difference in groove and spin performance. I think that the USGA is quite satisfied that they did the right thing. You can disagree. Again, it's fine.



    But again I press you on the fact that you asserted that the rule was "a joke" and somehow indicative of USGA incompetence. As if your disagreement with them made it "a joke."



    The rule was put into practice very nicely and according to plan. In no way was it "a joke."






    So what were the "intended results"?



    *crickets*



    What was in the "real spin data" that compelled the USGA to compelled the USGA to change the rule?



    *crickets*



    Why is wedge spin such a bad thing that the rules have to be changed to reduce it?



    *crickets*




    Did you want me to answer, or did you want to stay safe in a presumption that I wouldn't or couldn't answer?



    Is *crickets* how I should go about answering my own questions?
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,028 ✭✭
    https://www.usga.org/rules-hub/grooves/common-questions-answers.html



    Some information from the USGA regarding the groove rule changes. I'm not sure where to find the reports published in 2006 and 2007, but a reasoned protest of the rules should probably involve researching that data. It looks like the USGA actually did significant study before proposing any changes, and allowed feedback from manufacturers before they finalized the revised equipment specifications.
  • 15th Club15th Club Members Posts: 1,649 ✭✭
    QMany wrote:


    At this point, I just wonder how much the USGA is paying people to defend their ill-advised decisions and attack critics.




    Not enough! I'll take just one million, of the 19 million that Wally Uihelin took home from Acushnet Holdings Company, Inc., in 2016. And for that, I'll work a lot harder at it.
  • Darth PutterDarth Putter Members Posts: 4,616 ✭✭
    Of course, the R&A isn't exempt from stupid bans. They banned center shafted putters from 1910-1952, but the USGA did not.
    swing is irrelevant, score is everything

    just say NO.... to practice swings
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Members Posts: 25,107 ✭✭
    edited Jun 12, 2018 #138
    See my edit above for the article that outlines it. THey even called the players quitters.







    Look. I do not hate the usga at its core. I found the testing lab to be well run and very accessible when I've had to use it for irons to be tested. Very nice folks I've spoken and worked with.



    But. That doesn't mean that the leaders of that great membership aren't clueless. Or maybe more accurate. Very calculated in their attempts to continue their cronyism, yet pretty transparent at the same time.



    Here's a conspiracy I've just realized.



    The Cat who is he superintendent at Shinnecock. Now. He was the guy who set the pin on the seventh on Sunday at Shinnecock 04. And was responsible for that green. Sometime between now and then he became super at the Chicago golf club. And now super at Shinnecock. Hmmm. Both original usga founding clubs. Hmmmm. Why would you promote the guy who was in he center of that fiasco so many times ? Hmmm. To keep him quiet ? To keep the " team " together ? I don't know. Just found it pretty odd.







    still wondering about this guy >^^^^ quoting myself .....which is sad ..lol
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Titleist Tour Proto MB 3-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • 15th Club15th Club Members Posts: 1,649 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:


    https://www.usga.org...ns-answers.html



    Some information from the USGA regarding the groove rule changes. I'm not sure where to find the reports published in 2006 and 2007, but a reasoned protest of the rules should probably involve researching that data. It looks like the USGA actually did significant study before proposing any changes, and allowed feedback from manufacturers before they finalized the revised equipment specifications.




    Yeah the 2006 study was published. I recall it as a .pdf somewhere a long time ago. 2007 was a quick surprise follow-up, wasn't it? The groove thing is so settled to me, that I haven't given it much thought for many years.



    I hope somebody looks it up and provides a link. I don't have the time to do all the research for my four-dozen or so opponents here.
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,028 ✭✭
    15th Club wrote:

    QMany wrote:


    At this point, I just wonder how much the USGA is paying people to defend their ill-advised decisions and attack critics.




    Not enough! I'll take just one million, of the 19 million that Wally Uihelin took home from Acushnet Holdings Company, Inc., in 2016. And for that, I'll work a lot harder at it.


    Actually, I quite enjoy rebutting the lynch-mob mentality of the USGA haters. I don't have to agree with everything the USGA does to appreciate the very difficult things that they actually do. And I've yet to see anyone suggest a better option, other than one reasoned approach to a better handicap system.
  • ex0dusex0dus Members Posts: 497 ✭✭
    15th Club wrote:

    ex0dus wrote:

    15th Club wrote:


    No; what is clear is that you think that the groove rule didn't produce any of its intended results. That is your opinion. And that is fine. Have you asked the USGA; "Did the groove rule fail to work out as you intended?"



    But that is all that you have. I am pointing out that the groove rule was based on real spin data. There was a real difference in groove and spin performance. I think that the USGA is quite satisfied that they did the right thing. You can disagree. Again, it's fine.



    But again I press you on the fact that you asserted that the rule was "a joke" and somehow indicative of USGA incompetence. As if your disagreement with them made it "a joke."



    The rule was put into practice very nicely and according to plan. In no way was it "a joke."






    So what were the "intended results"?



    *crickets*



    What was in the "real spin data" that compelled the USGA to compelled the USGA to change the rule?



    *crickets*



    Why is wedge spin such a bad thing that the rules have to be changed to reduce it?



    *crickets*




    Did you want me to answer, or did you want to stay safe in a presumption that I wouldn't or couldn't answer?



    Is *crickets* how I should go about answering my own questions?






    *crickets* is my prediction of your response. I would certainly welcome your answers but don't expect them.
    Cobra King Ltd Pro
    Nike SQ2 13*
    Mizuno MP630 clk hybrid 20*
    Bstone J40 DPC 4 iron
    Cleveland 588 mb 5-pw
    Ping Gorge wedges 56*, 52*
    Cally Mack Daddy PM grind 60*
    Machine adjuster putter
    Bridgestone 330 ball
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members Posts: 1,953 ✭✭
    15th Club wrote:


    15th Club wrote:



    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...


    [background=transparent]15th, do you agree with the way the USGA handled the DJ situation in 2016?[/background]







    Pretty much, yeah. I haven't given it much thought since then. If the feeling was that the damage done was damage to Johnson's confidence and psyche and self-control by informing him of the ruling under consideration, it didn't much matter, did it? If the question was, was it an incident that revealed some kind of insular arrogance of the USGA, that too was blown up by several things. One was that by informing Johnson early, the USGA was trying to make it as clear as possible as early as possible what they were considering. In response to other 'notification' kerfuffles.' But the USGA regretted that, and openly said so if I am recalling correctly. I think the ruling itself was a close call; I recall being torn about it. I wasn't exactly sure. That happens in sports, doesn't it? Close calls? And then in the end the USGA has taken steps to try to better deal with that entire scenario in the future.



    I don't know; is "Dustin Johnson" the worst thing anybody can come up with, regarding the USGA? Personally, I think it is a non-issue which is why I'm probably not the best person to ask on that one.



    Do you want this to be a trap question for me? I think if you asked the USGA itself about the Dustin Johnson case, their answer would be something like, "We are dissatisfied with how that occurred, and we want to avoid it in the future..."




    I was just wondering if you agreed with how the USGA handled it.

    I'm glad to learn that you think they handled it just fine.




    I wrote what I wrote, Ashley Schaeffer. That is what I think.




    Yeah. I know. You think the USGA handled it fine. Love it. It's perfect.
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • 15th Club15th Club Members Posts: 1,649 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:

    15th Club wrote:

    QMany wrote:


    At this point, I just wonder how much the USGA is paying people to defend their ill-advised decisions and attack critics.




    Not enough! I'll take just one million, of the 19 million that Wally Uihelin took home from Acushnet Holdings Company, Inc., in 2016. And for that, I'll work a lot harder at it.


    Actually, I quite enjoy rebutting the lynch-mob mentality of the USGA haters. I don't have to agree with everything the USGA does to appreciate the very difficult things that they actually do. And I've yet to see anyone suggest a better option, other than one reasoned approach to a better handicap system.




    And of course I've made it clear that I haven't agreed with the USGA on everything, either. I agree with the USGA mostly, for good reason. So prefer to deal with specifics, and with specific reasons.
  • buckeyeflbuckeyefl Members Posts: 5,363 ✭✭
    Kevinx wrote:


    It's cause Mike Davis is an idiot. No special exempt for Retif Goosen but gives one to Erie Els and Furyik. The setup at Shinnecock will be so hard and take the players 6 hours to play will be boring and unwatchable. Us open is the worst major.




    I'm on the fence on special exemptions but this one made me sad because Goosen played really well last week, won some tough Opens and is a great guy.
  • buckeyeflbuckeyefl Members Posts: 5,363 ✭✭
    Kevinx wrote:


    It's cause Mike Davis is an idiot. No special exempt for Retif Goosen but gives one to Erie Els and Furyik. The setup at Shinnecock will be so hard and take the players 6 hours to play will be boring and unwatchable. Us open is the worst major.




    I'm on the fence on special exemptions but this one made me sad because Goosen played really well last week, won some tough Opens and is a great guy.
    15th Club wrote:

    ex0dus wrote:


    The groove rule was a joke. Chambers Bay, likewise. The anchoring ban, another joke. Anchoring was fine until someone won a major, then all of a sudden the USGA decided to ban anchoring because they didn't like the way it looked. And of course the rule was a mess which why there is still controversy about anchoring. The DJ ruling....ugh.



    During the Open Championship you hardly ever hear anyone mention the R&A. During the US Open the USGA it is exactly the opposit.




    I have made it a personal policy to challenge anyone, anytime they say something like, "the groove rule was a joke." My usual habit and custom is to first ask, "Why do you think it was a joke?"




    And when they tell you why, which has happened a dozen times in the distance thread, you just turtle up and play "bad lawyer from NCIS".
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Members Posts: 25,107 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:

    15th Club wrote:

    QMany wrote:


    At this point, I just wonder how much the USGA is paying people to defend their ill-advised decisions and attack critics.




    Not enough! I'll take just one million, of the 19 million that Wally Uihelin took home from Acushnet Holdings Company, Inc., in 2016. And for that, I'll work a lot harder at it.


    Actually, I quite enjoy rebutting the lynch-mob mentality of the USGA haters. I don't have to agree with everything the USGA does to appreciate the very difficult things that they actually do. And I've yet to see anyone suggest a better option, other than one reasoned approach to a better handicap system.






    the best approach i can think of for handicap system is to use T scores only for a true index.... and anyone who wants to get strokes and doesnt have T scores can negotiate them on the 1st tee based on what his or her playing partners are accustomed to them shooting. Thats the only way we will do away with the baggers.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Titleist Tour Proto MB 3-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members Posts: 1,953 ✭✭
    edited Jun 12, 2018 #147
    davep043 wrote:

    15th Club wrote:

    QMany wrote:


    At this point, I just wonder how much the USGA is paying people to defend their ill-advised decisions and attack critics.




    Not enough! I'll take just one million, of the 19 million that Wally Uihelin took home from Acushnet Holdings Company, Inc., in 2016. And for that, I'll work a lot harder at it.


    Actually, I quite enjoy rebutting the lynch-mob mentality of the USGA haters. I don't have to agree with everything the USGA does to appreciate the very difficult things that they actually do. And I've yet to see anyone suggest a better option, other than one reasoned approach to a better handicap system.




    The PGA of America.

    The PGA of America can adopt the USGA rules that make sense.

    PGA of America Rules can govern all play.

    PGA of America Professionals, who run the local tournaments, can interpret and apply their own association's rules for local tournaments.

    PGA of America Professionals, who talk to players, give lessons, run youth clinics, and otherwise are on the front lines of the game, can give the feedback and comments directly to their own association to govern the game in the US.

    The PGA of America can decide which "studies" it wants to fund using member dues, but the members, who are in touch with the game, will have a say on what is needed.

    The PGA of America can decide which "studies" it wants to fund via other means, and outsource them to the lowest bidder.

    The PGA of America can outsource equipment testing to the lowest bidder. The USGA can submit a bid.



    In short, the Professional Golfers Association of America is WAY more in touch with the amateur game than the USGA. Somewhat ironic.
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • 15th Club15th Club Members Posts: 1,649 ✭✭
    ex0dus wrote:

    15th Club wrote:


    No; what is clear is that you think that the groove rule didn't produce any of its intended results. That is your opinion. And that is fine. Have you asked the USGA; "Did the groove rule fail to work out as you intended?"



    But that is all that you have. I am pointing out that the groove rule was based on real spin data. There was a real difference in groove and spin performance. I think that the USGA is quite satisfied that they did the right thing. You can disagree. Again, it's fine.



    But again I press you on the fact that you asserted that the rule was "a joke" and somehow indicative of USGA incompetence. As if your disagreement with them made it "a joke."



    The rule was put into practice very nicely and according to plan. In no way was it "a joke."






    So what were the "intended results"?



    *crickets*



    No, not "crickets." You could ask the USGA, or write to them, or research what their thinking was. But you want me to do that for you, right? You could find and read the 2006 published study. And personally, although I don't speak for the USGA, I expect that their answer might be along the lines of, "The combination of technolgocially-produced distance, plus the desire/habit of utilizing longer rough around the greens to penalize errant shots, made us want to de-emphasize the technologically-produced control that comes from the combination of square grooves and urethane-covered golf balls in longer grass.



    What was in the "real spin data" that compelled the USGA to compelled the USGA to change the rule?



    *crickets*



    It's in the 2006 report, among many other places including some university studies. Look 'em up. The data was rather consistent.



    Why is wedge spin such a bad thing that the rules have to be changed to reduce it?



    *crickets*



    It was to do more, to reward play from short grass and to penalize play from long grass. Very generally. Incrementally, some might say. And of course the USGA's testing showed that it didn't much matter what sort of grooves you had, if you were playing with a down-market ball like an ionomer-cover ball. So that the majority of recreational players who never purchased urethane balls had nothing to worry about.
  • buckeyeflbuckeyefl Members Posts: 5,363 ✭✭
    15th Club wrote:



    15th Club wrote:

    DFS PFD wrote:


    Honest ignorance here, with an honest question, what organization was behind the Lexi Thompson ruling? That was the most atrocious decision I've heard about in professional golf, and painful to watch.




    Honest, clear answer: it was the USGA.



    And the USGA supplied a completely public accounting of the ruling, and the reaction, [url="http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2017/04/inside-the-lexi-thompson-penalty.html"]HERE.[/url] I commend it to you, straight up.



    I thought it was the correct ruling. I have absolutely no problem, with any golf ruling as long as it is the right ruling. I don't care if it was caught by a tv assistant director, or a commentator, or a former USGA executive having a cocktail at home in Florida on his big-screen.



    And by the way; what other sports league or front office is as transparent as the USGA?



    Edit.; yes, the event was the ANA Inspiration, an LPGA-sanctioned event. That's probably a better answer, if you are asking who imposed the ruling. The Rules of Golf were obviously "behind the ruling." Too much USGA-defense on my mind this week, a/k/a "USGA Hateweek."




    15th, do you agree with the way the USGA handled the DJ situation in 2016?




    And the blaming of the super for loosing the greens at Shinnecock , when they know full welll they establish Control weeks or months before the event.




    I blame the USGA completely for the Seventh green in 2004. Again, I say that what gets overlooked in that was the upset that the newly-developed urethane ball phenomenon was causing at that time, as the ruling bodies were coming to grips with an unprecedented distance gain in the few years preceding that championship.



    In any event, I don't think that anyone at the USGA is blaming any superintendent or staff member now. And as far as I know, one person (Walter Driver) did that out of defensive ignorance or misinformation.



    Tom Meeks, ex- of the USGA says that [url="https://www.golfdigest.com/story/us-open-2018-the-2004-us-open-and-a-sunday-to-forget"]he alone takes the blame.[/url]



    Again, isn't this a case of mythmaking taking over the actual story? The actual story is that a mistake was made, and it was made for a complex of reasons. But the mythmaking takes over, because the popular narrative is to try to find reasons to hate on the USGA.




    And none of those reasons was the ball. The ProV1 had been out for four years by that point and the USGA had their hands on them before that point.
  • ex0dusex0dus Members Posts: 497 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:


    https://www.usga.org...ns-answers.html



    Some information from the USGA regarding the groove rule changes. I'm not sure where to find the reports published in 2006 and 2007, but a reasoned protest of the rules should probably involve researching that data. It looks like the USGA actually did significant study before proposing any changes, and allowed feedback from manufacturers before they finalized the revised equipment specifications.






    That is exactly why I think the groove rule was joke. They change the rule for everyone because they don't like the way the best players in the world are playing.


    that the rough had become less of a challenge for expert players, and that driving accuracy was less of a key factor for success. The technical specifications were designed to restore the challenge of playing shots to the green from the rough by limiting the performance on those shots, therefore making sure that driving accuracy remained a factor of success in the game for expert players.




    The funny part is that the USGA has made the rough less of a challenge in the US Open than it was in past years, but I am sure the irony is lost on them
    Cobra King Ltd Pro
    Nike SQ2 13*
    Mizuno MP630 clk hybrid 20*
    Bstone J40 DPC 4 iron
    Cleveland 588 mb 5-pw
    Ping Gorge wedges 56*, 52*
    Cally Mack Daddy PM grind 60*
    Machine adjuster putter
    Bridgestone 330 ball
  • dlygrissedlygrisse Members Posts: 13,014 ✭✭
    As far as the pros go, I think it really got going when Payne Stewart was critical on TV for the 18th at Olympic, then Phil at Shinnecock. that Par 3 was ridiculous



    Groove rule. Stooooopid. .

    Ping G400
    Callaway Rogue 3w, HW
    Ping G 4 hybrid
    Ping G 4-U
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 54* SS
    Vokey 58 M grind
    Odyssey Pro #1 black
    Jones Utility
    ECCO Biom Hybrid 3
Sign In or Register to comment.